Achieving Predictability in Augmentation Mastopexy

Abstract

Therapeutic, IV.

All Seasons Vertical Augmentation Mastopexy: A Simple Algorithm, Clinical Experience, and Patient-reported Outcomes

“…36 However, an implant takes up volume and minimizes skin gathering, reducing the need for an inverted-T component. 20 The revision rate in the present study (15.5%) is slightly lower than the rate reported for predominantly Wise pattern augmentation mastopexies (19.3%) 6 despite a larger mean implant volume (372 vs 247 mL). The hematoma rate (0.4%) compares favorably with breast augmentation alone (2.7%), 18 possibly because of improved exposure.…”

“…6 The traditional recommendation is to use a periareolar resection for cases of minor ptosis, vertical mammaplasty for more moderate degrees of breast ptosis, and an inverted-T technique for major ptosis. 1,28 A periareolar resection removes extra tissue from around the areola but provides minimal breast mound elevation.…”

“…17,18 Despite the popularity of vertical augmentation mastopexy, there is a deficiency of patient-reported outcome data; hence, the need for clinical and outcomes data related solely to the vertical method. This study differs from previous studies of augmentation mastopexy 6–9,12–16 in that no patient was selected for staging, avoiding selection bias.…”

“…4 Several investigators 4–6 caution that this procedure not only combines complication rates but multiplies them. The conventional wisdom is that the operations are at cross purposes; the implant stretches the skin envelope, whereas the mastopexy tightens it.…”

“…Almost all published series include patients treated with multiple techniques. 6,8,9,12–16 In 2 recent large series, the vertical method was used in 40% of patients in one study 7 and in 10% of patients in the other study. 16 …”